New member, looking for discussion

[rookieonedge]

Your comments in the beginning of your above post all assume the inerrancy of christian scripture and infallibility of the Church as a starting point.
None of that can be proven - it has to be assumed true by faith.
An organization simply can’t use materials it, itself, created to ‘prove’ its assertions.

Regarding my background, I was raised Catholic, but didn’t believe the mythology and left.
I never went to protestantism, but found my path amongst the various spiritual traditions of India.

From that outsider perspective, there is no knowledge of what Jesus said and did - only knowledge of what others said Jesus said and did. The Church has built up far too much unprovable theology and doctrine based on second hand alleged quotes.

This has lead to a severely dysfunctional emphasis on form and words usurping the place of spiritual substance of experience.

I left the Church, too. as I mentioned in a different post (sorry, I don’t keep track) and tried to get a flavor of the Eastern religions. I discovered why our Western Civilization was born of the Catholic religion including the Protestant work ethic and the in-depth, beautiful art and architecture of the Catholic Church. Eastern religions do not have a God-Man to love, who died for them due to supreme love, who rose from the dead and started His church to teach us how to love. That is why Mother Teresa could go to India and clean the lepers. We have the GREAT tradition of the saints and martyrs. I came back rejoicing because I had discovered TRUTH. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the LIfe,” says Our Lord. You can’t get any better than that!

 

[rookieonedge]

I don’t really know what you mean by relativist, absolutist, or natural law. There are many different definitions that different people use, and I can’t know what you mean unless you explain further.

I don’t agree with absolutism defined here, as context must be considered when making a moral decision.

Quickly looking at this page on relativism just made me more confused about what you are asking.

I have to admit that I found those pages confusing with so many elements for each philosophy. I was thinking in terms of absolutism as a set of laws such as the Ten Commandments that are God-given and ABSOLUTE. Because SIN is SIN. Nonetheless, God looks into our hearts and sees the circumstances so that our culpability may be lessed.

As for relativism, that philosphy is trendy nowadays because adherents say that every thing depends on everything else, so no one is to blame for anything. So students say, “Well, everything is relative” that being an absolute statement in itself.

My point in bringing this up was to take a different turn to try and see God as the author of life who has graciously given us rules for our own good. Just think. . . if everybody starting with “Adam” and “Eve” had obeyed God, we wouldn’t be in this pickle. God still calls us to LOVE. He is Love so He must discipline us like a Father.

Maybe I’m going off on a tangent (as usual), but Pascal’s Wager and God knowing our thoughts isn’t going anywhere.

 

[rookieonedge]

Flew used the fallacious argument from personal incredulity.

If the burden of proof is not on the claimant, then the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, because She cannot be disproven! (how can she be both invisible and pink, though?)

I say Flew is using the argument of the obvious.
Pink invisible unicorn? That’s as bad as the FSM.
Neither has any power.
ay! that’s the rub. . .

This has already happened! In the Good Old Days™, flashes of light and noise from the sky was thought to be god’s anger, but it is actually lightning. Similarly the beauty of our surroundings have been shown to occur without supernatural intervention.

This alalogy assumes it’s own outcome! How tripe.

lol, do you seriously believe this ****, Mr. Rookieonedge? Perhaps you are trolling.

 

[rookieonedge]

Flashes of lighening and sounds of thunder were at one time and place thought to be the voice of God, says Wasnit. True enough. That’s why with the advancement of science, we learn more and more about God, like, how GREAT his universe is and how mysterious was our creation. God won’t let us in all the secrets until life after life, that is, life everlasting. Cool huh?

 

[wilbur006]

Sorry that I had to be away and could not answer certain questions by some .

I had told one member that I had a lengthy discourse on proving Catholicism, but it is 45 pages on a word processor. It is impossible to use the e-mail for this since the pages all run together for a very long time. I have used PDF once, but the one party that receive it that way had trouble looking at each page of the PDF file, and frankly it is not the way to read any type of scholarly work. That is best in printed form, such as a book or from printed pages from a word processor. I have offered to send anybody a copy of this, disregarding the mailing cost of about $2.50, since that is a very small sacrifice for following Jesus’ command to “teach” His message to he world.

If any one e-mails me at wilbur006@dishmail.net requesting a copy I will gladly send it to you. If you are up to a PDF file I will also do that, but you would have to print out 45 pages to properly digest my thesis.

I do have a significant section in my discourse explaining what some of the historical documents are that prove the faith and dogma of the Church. To be a true Christian one must believe in the gospel of Jesus, and much of it demands that we become members of His Church, and to eat of His Body and Drink of His Blood to have “life in us”. This is all explained in my discourse to prove it is not merely a metaphor as Protestant and Evangelicals believe. Additionally the dogma of Infallibility and Primacy of Peter, as the first Pope is all documented from the gospels and from historical evidence. For a starter, one only has to read the following sections of the gospels to learn the essence of “inflallibility”: Matt 16:13-19. Non Catholics refuse to believe and understand what Jesus meant by the words “upon this rock” when addressing Simon. I have a whole section proving without any doubt that Jesus was referred only to Simon, and to him did he give the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven and say to him that “whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”(Douay-Rheims Bible).

In this regards, there is ample historical evidence that not only Peter had these “Keys to the Kingdom”, but all successor bishops who were elected as Popes throughout the history of the Church.

Here is a sample of external evidence that Peter had special powers:

1. Next to Jesus, Peter is mentioned more than any ot her Aposele in Scripture (152 times).
2. Peter stood up on behalf of he apostles(Mt. 19:27, Act 1:15, 2:14.)
3. Peter stood up at the birth of the Church at the Pentecost to lead them (Acts 2:14).
4. The disciples were referred to as Peter and the Apostles (Acts 2:37, 5:29).
5. Peter was given the authority to forgive sins before the rest of the apostles( (Mt. 16-18).
6. Pete was always named first when the ajpostles were listed (Mt. 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); and sometimes it was said “Peter and those who were with him” (Lk 9:32).
7. In the Acts of the Apostles Peter always appears in the position of primacy:
   a. He takes charge of the election of St. Matthias to fill the vacancy caused by the suicide of Judas (1:15-22).

b. He receives into the Church the first converts from the Jews and heathens (2:14-41; 10-5).

1. Tertullian in 220 AD said, “Was anything h id from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was build; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?” (from Tertlullian, De Praaescript Haeret).
2. St. Hippolytus in 225 AD wrote, “Peter, the Rock of the Church…” and also said, “Peter, the Rock of the Faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who ha s the Keys of the Kingdom”.

Now I could list at least 25 additional early Church Bishops (now Saints) who wrote many referenced about Peter being the original Head and Foundation of the Church Christ found; though I really do not think it is necessary for this discussion.

In conclusion, I will probably be unavailable for a few days to respond, but I would be glad to further provide scripture and historical evidence to Prove the Catholic Church is the only church founded by Jesus. I would recommend that all catholics, but primarily non-catholics to read the following scriptures to understand how Jesus gave us His body to eat: (Jn 6:25-35; 6:47-52; 6:61-67; Luke 22:19-20, Matt 26:28)/
.
God bless all who sincerely seek the truth.

 

[steve_b]

I can think of at least two uncaused events.
Virtual particles being spontaneously generated inside a vacuum annd radioactive decay.

Wrong.

• particles (call them virtual if you want) are an effect not a cause. Something caused them to exist in the first place.
• Vacuum is an effect. What causes a vacuum?
• radioactivity is an effect. what causes it?
• decay is an effect. What causes it?

was:

There is no first rule of science.

I said a first rule of science. I didn’t say THE first rule of science

• can Newton be called a scientist?
• notice Newton’s first law quest.nasa.gov/mars/teachers/tg/program1/Act1.1A.html
• ergo, what I said about that law, is a first rule/law of science

was:

Belief is 100% certainty. Not-knowing is not 100% certainty.

c’mon friend, belief is NOT 100% certain unless proven…correct? Otherwise one wouldn’t need faith…correct? If you believe in something you can’t prove that’s faith.
was:

They are clearly different things. It is OK to be unsure.

Then you believe in faith

 

[jmcrae]

however, when he created humans, he could have easily changed one of my or your particular decisions, therefore, he chose the outcome of everyone’s decision at the moment of creation.

Not while at the same time giving us free will.

said another way, he created everyone with the knowledge of every decision that is made. At creation, he could have changed any of these decisions. therefore, he made every decision for every person.

Again, not without violating free will.

If I program a computer game with a “random” function, there is no point to having the “random” function, if I then bypass it with a hard-wired path that forces the user to choose the path I think he should choose. It’s the “random” function that makes the game interesting - it would go against my goal of creating a fun game, if I took out the “random” function, or bypassed it in some way.

It’s the same with God. He gave us free will so that we could choose freely how to live our lives. It would go against God’s whole idea of human life, if He were to bypass our free will in any way.

 

[steve_b]

Flew used the fallacious argument from personal incredulity…[snip]

Here’s Flew’s bio.

infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/flew-bio.html

Would it be fair to say, that in his advanced years and experience as an active and vocal atheist around the halls of academia, he at least gets credit for probably knowing and maybe even using most if not all the arguments in his life that atheists use to support his former position?

And as I see it, based on this man’s bio, he’s still active. The man has had debates with Dawkins, another renouned atheist as few as 3 years ago.

But somehow those former arguments against God, are not working for him now.
was:

If the burden of proof is not on the claimant, then the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, because She cannot be disproven! (how can she be both invisible and pink, though?)

Good point.

Since you’re the one opening this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4635503&postcount=1

claiming there is NO God, you challenge others to prove there is a God through discussion… but only with proof backed up by evidence, NOT based on faith…true?

Well, the reverse must also happen for you. You must deny God exists using only proof and evidence NOT based on personal doubts because it seems difficult and hard or implausable to accept but you must provide provable evidence, that He dose NOT exist.

 

[steve_b]

This is an incredibly biased article, which takes Dawkins and Flew’s words and twists them beyond recognition to suit the site’s agenda. There are many obvious lies, weasel words, and appeals to emotion. Any intelligent and informed person could not take this trashy article seriously.

then why not take the points you have a problem with and refute them, one at a time…

arn.org/docs/williams/pw_comparingdawkinsflew.htm

 

[wasmit]

Wrong.

• particles (call them virtual if you want) are an effect not a cause. Something caused them to exist in the first place.
• Vacuum is an effect. What causes a vacuum?
• radioactivity is an effect. what causes it?
• decay is an effect. What causes it?

This^ is just contradiction, it’s not an argument. I dismissed your point “everything must have a cause” by pointing out two conter examples. Can you show that these two examples are invalid, and further show that extrapolating “everything must have a cause” to the time of the big bang is a sound assumption?

c’mon friend, belief is NOT 100% certain unless proven…correct? Otherwise one wouldn’t need faith…correct? If you believe in something you can’t prove that’s faith.

Belief, defined as “Mental acceptance of a claim as truth.” implies 100% certainty.

Then you believe in faith

That does not follow from my statement.

Can you explain how “They [certainty and not-knowing] are clearly different things. It is OK to be unsure.” implies that I believe in faith?
"

 

[jmcrae]

Belief, defined as “Mental acceptance of a claim as truth.” implies 100% certainty.

Actually, no - all it does is it accepts the authority who is claiming the article in question as “reliable.” I believe many things taught by the Church, not because I have been convinced of those things, but because I have become convinced that the Church is reliable.

Most people accept scientific ideas, not because they have been convinced of each and every idea (no one could possibly live long enough for that) but rather, because they are convinced that the scientific method is reliable, and that science is generally reliable.

 

[wasmit]

however, when he created humans, he could have easily changed one of my or your particular decisions, therefore, he chose the outcome of everyone’s decision at the moment of creation.

Yes, that is the outcome of the argument - humans having free will is inconsistent with omnipotence, omniscience and creation of humans. These four assumptions cannot exist within the same being.

If I program a computer game with a “random” function, there is no point to having the “random” function, if I then bypass it with a hard-wired path that forces the user to choose the path I think he should choose. It’s the “random” function that makes the game interesting - it would go against my goal of creating a fun game, if I took out the “random” function, or bypassed it in some way.

It’s the same with God. He gave us free will so that we could choose freely how to live our lives. It would go against God’s whole idea of human life, if He were to bypass our free will in any way.

A god with omnipotence and omniscience cannot create a random decision (e.g. a dice roll). A normal 6-sided dice (whose outcome is “1”), is the same as a 6-sided dice with “1” on every side.

Even if god attempted to create a random process, the outcome is known (omniscience). Therefore he cannot create a process that is random to him. (i.e. outcome unknown to him).
Therefore, he created every human with every descision known to him. He could have created every human with some descisions made differently. therefore, he made every decision for every person. so, free will does not exist.

 

[rookieonedge]

How do you know that a vision of, say, the devil or mary is divinely created? How do you know that the smoke/curtains/blood/cheese toast/dream/hallucination just happened to roughly resemble the picture of mary that you see every day?

This is just a few blobs of black on a white background. What can you see?

http://www.visionarts.ca/images/cow420.jpg

To answer your second question first, all I see are “a few blobs of black on a white background.” (I’m not very good with Rorschach tests. LOL)

As for determining if a vision comes from God, Satan, or one’s own imagination, that is something for Church authorities to examine with careful questioning and psychological evaluation. The Church is very hesitant to make such pronouncements. Authorities don’t usually get involved unless the “visions” are becoming public and confusion exists about what to believe. The apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima were the major ones approved in the last century. (Heaven supplied proof in healing water at Lourdes, and about 70,000 people saw the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Portugal in 1917–the newspapers had articles all over Europe). Others have been approved; some are pending. Most are rejected. Or there are other supposed “supernatural” occurences as the image of Mary on a piece of toast or was it a grilled cheese sandwhich sold on e-bay for a few thousand dollars?

 

[rookieonedge]

how does this show that the bible is true and the koran is not? I don’t follow your argument.

Evidently, you don’t think that “rising from the dead” proves anything. No human can do that. Besides Jesus predicted His death and Resurrection.

 

[rookieonedge]

Yes, that is the conclusion that logically follows from a omniscient and omnipotent god that created humans. He knew you would have a beer on 11 feb 09, and could have created you so that you had an oranje juice or water instead, but chose that the result of that decision would be a beer.

Like you said, He KNEW I would be having a beer on said date. He didn’t create me with the thought that I should and would have a beer at that particular time. He didn’t say to Himself: Shall it be oj, H20, or Bud? He created me with desires and needs, such as thirst, but He left it up to my CHOICE to decide for myself what I wanted to drink. I suppose you believe that it’s God who is choosing abortion and not the woman.

 

[rookieonedge]

in relation to the omnipotence/free will/omniscience contradiction, god knew that this person’s mind would change on this date on this particular issue. he created all humans (including our subject) knowing that this decision would be made. He could have created this person so that their mind wouldn’t change. The point is that the choice was god’s at the moment of creation. Therefore there is no free will.

So what you are saying is that He created puppets or robots because that is the reality of what you are describing. Maybe you’re pre-programmed, but I know I’m not. Regardless of the genetic make-up that God allowed when sperm and egg met, each and every individual can choose when it comes to moral issues. Of course, environment may predispose people to come to different conclusions about external things (like whether to have a beer, oj or H20), but when it comes to RIGHT and WRONG, we’re given freedom of choice, or free will, if you prefer.
So if there is a God (only in the Christian sense?), that implies no free will. But if there isn’t a God, that implies free will?

 

[wasmit]

Here’s Flew’s bio.

infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/flew-bio.html

Would it be fair to say, that in his advanced years and experience as an active and vocal atheist around the halls of academia, he at least gets credit for probably knowing and maybe even using most if not all the arguments in his life that atheists use to support his former position?

And as I see it, based on this man’s bio, he’s still active. The man has had debates with Dawkins, another renouned atheist as few as 3 years ago.

But somehow those former arguments against God, are not working for him now.

Flew based his aristotlean deism on the fallacious assumption that a theory of abiogenesis is impossible to provide. His quote:

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species … [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.

However, a cursory look at the current progress of study in abiogenesis proves this to be patently false. Flew realises this, and retracts his reason for deism: His quote:

I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction

source:
secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=369

 

[wasmit]

If the burden of proof is not on the claimant, then the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, because She cannot be disproven! (how can she be both invisible and pink, though?)

That is not the way that the concept of Burden of Proof works.

All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn!

 

[wasmit]

Like you said, He KNEW I would be having a beer on said date. **He didn’t create me with the thought that I should and would have a beer at that particular time. ** He didn’t say to Himself: Shall it be oj, H20, or Bud? He created me with desires and needs, such as thirst, but He left it up to my CHOICE to decide for myself what I wanted to drink. I suppose you believe that it’s God who is choosing abortion and not the woman.

Then he is not omniscient.

 

[wasmit]

in relation to the omnipotence/free will/omniscience contradiction, god knew that this person’s mind would change on this date on this particular issue. he created all humans (including our subject) knowing that this decision would be made. He could have created this person so that their mind wouldn’t change. The point is that the choice was god’s at the moment of creation. Therefore there is no free will.

yes, that is the logical conclusion from an omniscient and omnipotent creator god